AH Xone db4 vs Xone 92?

[MockusD]

Hello there fellow DJTechtools members. My question is as title states db4 vs 92, I have been looking for proper versus topic and even google didn't give much advice, just one topic, which I don't believe covers it. Why do still a lot of DJ's swear by using Xone 92? I do understand of them sends and returns, but... It can't be just that.. I have had xone db4 for a wee while now, and I started to notice it's flaws, or just got bored of it. I'm thinking of getting Xone 92. What xone db4 offers is kinda, unworkable for me, I like using reverb - db4 reverb nah... Filters are good, delays are good, but got bored of them a while back. As I'm using Ableton with Traktor, I do believe, that using xone 92 I would benefit more, Delay and reverb from ableton on send/return knob, obviously filters.. map some traktor effect chains on controller, and I also have Maschine to use with Ableton too. As xone 92 have no midi, would all send/return to ableton from and out will be done from Audio 10 etc etc soundcard? Is Audio 10 a must for that setup? Maybe Audio 8 or 6 would do? I'm kinda new with all that soundcard things as Db4 had inside one, was very simple and easy to set up.

[astromech]

For a lot of people, the DB4 is overkill, especially if they already have an audio interface and other gear. Also, Dat Price.

[roosg]

Between the 92, DB4, and DB2, you can't go wrong.

I was debating this exact thing for weeks until roughly a week ago.

Long story short, I've only ever owned Pioneer mixers, but have wanted an A&H mixer for years, especially after playing on them. My options were either the Xone 92, Xone 92R, Xone DB2, or Xone DB4. I spent days and days digging through various DJ forums, reading reviews, looking at pictures, and doing research. I went down to my local DJ store to play with all of the mixers and to try and gauge a better understanding of what would really suit my needs without price being a factor. Eventually I opted for a Xone 92R.

Ultimately it came down to the feel, functionality, and features of the 92 versus the DB range. I would say that if you are using turntables - go with the 92. If you're using CDJs (with or without HID mode) and/or heavily dependent on MIDI and/or using controllers to control parameters in Traktor / Ableton, I would go with the DB4.

The DB range are solid products - they sound great and have amazing sounding studio quality effects. The FX section alone is a monster of its own and truly powerful. As happydan pointed out above though, the DB4 is overkill for many people.

The DB range also has very flexible MIDI integration which is pretty much non-existent on the 92. The DB range would definitely allow for more flexibility when using digital devices, and as a result of this, is more future-proofed than the 92. Without trying to spark a debate about analog versus digital, the 92 and both DBs sound amazing, you cannot fault A&H for audio quality. I have tested them at high levels on big sound systems and they definitely sound different, but all are fantastic. That being said, the 92 is a fully analog mixer which has a completely different "feel" to it than the DB range - it's hard to put into words - you need to feel for yourself. Everything on the 92 is rock solid - it feels like it could withstand a hurricane. All the knobs and switches on the mixer are high quality and silent. On the DB range, I noticed that while the buttons were aesthetically pleasing, they were very loud in comparison and also felt more delicate and more easily prone to scratches than on the 92 due to the metal finish that they've used on the DB range.

The DB range are miles ahead of most, if not all, the DJ mixers that we've seen released in the last few years. However, the 92 still seems to hold the throne in terms of build quality, functionality, and integration. Between the 92 and DB4, the 92 is heavier, feels more solid, and feels like it would be able to take more abuse.

In terms of why many DJs still swear by the 92, that's probably because it has been on the market for so long and has become a permanent staple in many bedrooms and clubs around the world. DJs are familiar with it and like working with it because of it's impressive track record, functionality, and high quality output. In the end, the 92 may be one of A&H's older models but it is their flagship product and one of the best mixers available today, even after all these years.

To answer your question on the sound card - realistically, how many channels do you think you'll be using? I think the Audio 10 allows for endless possibilities and I bought one despite only using two channels now, just in case I want to add anything in the future.

[MaxOne]

Personally i dont like the fader curve or the headphone cueing on a xone 92. Sound quality and filters are lush no doubt.

I'll still take the DJM900 over the 92 for features (traktor scratch certified / cdj2000 link up / fx] and the fact it is everywhere when you play out

Just sayin

[roosg]

The fader curve is not as sharp on the Xone 92R (rotary), it's a pretty linear curve - definitely more linear than the DJM900.

The DJM-900 vs. A&H DB2 would perhaps be a more objective comparison.

[makar1]

You can set the DJM faders to linear if that's what you prefer.

[MaxOne]

Defo not more linear than the DJM900 when the faders are set to linear... Thats as linear as it gets

[roosg]

To each their own.

The Xone 92 (linear) versus the DJM-900, I would agree that the DJM-900 has a more linear curve; but when compared to the 92 ROTARY, you can't objectively compare. Rotary mixers are designed for more precise control, where the volume curve tends to be a lot smoother compared to linear faders.

I get that you have a DJM-900. I've owned Pioneer, Ecler, and Rane mixers in the past. I'm currently holding onto a Pioneer DJM-T1 which I bought last year, and just recently picked up the Xone 92R. I wish people would realize that there are far better mixers currently on the market than Pioneers.

[makar1]

The 92 isn't "far better than Pioneers". It's just different. 4-band EQ and variable resonance filters, vs two FX units and audio interface.

Rotaries are just the equivalent of a long fader (they are electrically identical). Linear faders can be just as smooth too, but the person operating them has to be more careful.

[roosg]

Wasn't saying the 92 was far better than any Pioneer - Pioneer make a great product, and as you said, they are just different. I owned a DJM-500 and DJM-700 back in the day; they were great. Build quality was great and performed as described.

I was just stating that when compared to manufacturers like Ecler or Rane, especially in terms of FX and sound quality, the DJM-900 isn't that great.

This was an Allen & Heath Xone DB4 versus Allen & Heath Xone 92 thread, was it not? How did the DJM-900 get tossed in here?

As I said, if we're making that comparison the DJM-900 vs. Xone DB2 and the DJM-2000 vs. Xone DB4 would be more accurate. However this isn't another Pioneer vs. A&H thread, I was simply responding to the OP.